Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Businesses The Internet Your Rights Online

What To Do About CC License Violations? 437

Posted by timothy
from the put-your-feet-in-these-stirrups dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In the past, I've seen my pictures used by big commercial companies despite the Creative Commons license that clearly limits them to non-commercial use. I just let it slide because a friend who's a lawyer says that all I can do is sue. They've ignored emails and comments. Today, I saw two other examples that show this is pretty rampant. These big commercial corporations are some of the most tech savvy publications around, but they just grabbed the image. One, BoingBoing, even reprinted the 'non-commercial' clause, warning others to stay away. But they've got their ads from Cheerios, HP and Mazda running alongside. Does anyone care that we've gone to all this trouble to create new, more flexible licenses? Does it even matter when very smart people just flip the bird to the license? Is the only alternative to sue? I wouldn't mind asking for $150k and settling for $1 for each copy made, but that seems a bit crazy. I hate to type out DMCA notices but their attitude is that only uncool people complain about this and I should be happy about the publicity. Then they can be happy about not sharing their ad revenue with artists or photographers. What can I do?" Update: 08/30 18:39 GMT by T : (Very belated; mea culpa.) Cory Doctorow writes: "The anonymous submitter is not the creator of the photo. The creator of that photo is Jennifer Trant, a friend and colleague of mine who has no trouble with my use of her photo. I have just gotten off the phone with her and confirmed that she did not submit the story and also that she is happy to have this photo on Boing Boing." The photo has since been added back to BoingBoing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What To Do About CC License Violations?

Comments Filter:
  • Send them a bill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:03PM (#33059064)

    Invoice them. If they don't pay, sue them.

    • by Fwipp (1473271) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:05PM (#33059114)

      They would sue you in a heartbeat if they thought they could make a dollar from it. Don't let them get away with hypocrisy.

      • Re:Send them a bill (Score:5, Informative)

        by tonywong (96839) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:35PM (#33059666) Homepage
        Agreed. If they don't pay the bill make sure that you sue them in small claims court. Depending on jurisdiction it should be under 25k, but it also is loaded towards the small guy (you).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by the_womble (580291)

        If you want to enforce legal rights, then sue.

        Boing Boing have already removed the image an added an apology to the post.

        In the case of other websites, send a DMCA complaint to search engines. They must then either remove the image, or send a counter-notice, or have the search engine stop returning links to the page in searches.

        Big media are not going to risk lying in the counter-notification, so they will probably remove the image.

        Your only other alternative is to take your photos off anywhere they can be

    • RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027)

      Invoice them. If they don't pay, sue them.

      That's exactly the major record labels' strategy.

      • Except that they skip right to the second part.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by clone53421 (1310749)

        Except that they go after grandmothers whose grandkids wanted music for their MP3 players, whereas he’s just trying to keep people from profiting off what was supposed to be free (and free under the explicit condition that you weren’t allowed to profit from it).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RevWaldo (1186281)
      The next step if they don't pay is to bring in a collection agency, who will harass them for payment in return for a percentage. Paying a vig to the collection agent may sting a bit, but if it's more about principle than money it could be well worth it.

      (I recall reading stories about cartoonist Ken Weiner, who, also out of principle, used this technique with deadbeat freelance clients, with good effect. His alternate method was to visit their offices during business hours unannounced - brandishing a large
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by EvilBudMan (588716)

      Since when was BoingBoing tech savy?

  • DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:04PM (#33059086) Journal
    This sounds like one of those situations where a DMCA takedown would work...

    Wired, having y'know, actual printed copies and stuff, could probably be intimidated into an actual settlement more easily...
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, start filing takedown notices.

      It's a frickin' license. It's a legal agreement they're violating.
      Offer settlements, if they decline, file DMCA takedown notices and start a blog shaming them. (With appropriate screenshots.)

      If that still doesn't help, get a lawyer.

      Always remember: If they have no reason to pay you, they're not gonna pay you. It's as simple as that. You invested work into those pictures and you're entitled to payment if they're being used commercially. Since they don't play fair, you'll h

      • MAY be violating (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PatHMV (701344) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:45PM (#33059838) Homepage
        BoingBoing MAY be violating the terms of the license. But they may not be. The actual legal language of this particular clause of the Creative Commons license is fairly ambiguous, to my reading.

        Here's the relevant definition (from CC ver. 3):

        You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in con-nection with the exchange of copyrighted works.

        Is the use of the photo to illustrate a story "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage"? My own blog has ads on it, but those ads have never paid me enough to even meet the expenses of hosting the blog. Would I be using the image for "commercial advantage" if I posted it on my blog?

        Worse, the phrase "commercial use" has a fairly standard meaning in photography law, as the use of the image basically in an advertisement. Thus, when the National Enquirer runs a photo of some celebrity, that use is an "editorial" use rather than a "commercial" use; it illustrates the editorial story. They still have to pay the photographer ("non-commercial use" by itself is hardly enough to allow a copyright violation), but they don't have to pay the subjects of the photo anything... even though the whole point of running the photo is to sell more copies of the Enquirer, a for-profit organization. But if they wanted to use the very same photo in an ad for, say, a watch company advertising in the Enquirer, then that ad would be a "commercial use" of the photo, and they would have to have the permission of the subjects of the photo to use it for that purpose. Media companies are VERY familiar with that distinction, so if they see a "non-commercial use only" clause, then they will automatically assume that just means that you can't use it in an actual ad.

        So when the CC non-commercial clause is used, does that mean "commercial" versus "editorial" as the law has defined those concepts in an important area of photography law? Or does it mean something entirely different? The definition should be MUCH more clear. As a lawyer, I wouldn't have a problem representing BoingBoing here, and I'm sure the vagueness of the clause would at the VERY least allow them to get off with only paying a nominal charge for the use of the images, and may very well result in them not having to pay a dime.

        Go rant at Lawrence Lessig and the lawyers who drew up the Creative Commons license for not writing clearer license terms.

        • Re:MAY be violating (Score:5, Informative)

          by PatHMV (701344) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:59PM (#33060090) Homepage
          See this discussion about the varied understandings of the term "non-commercial" as used by Creative Commons [creativecommons.org]:

          While it would take a more focused and exhaustive study to conclude that these seemingly fortunate attitudinal differences are correct, strong, and global, they do hint at rules of thumb for licensors releasing works under NC licenses and licensees using works released under NC licenses — licensors should expect some uses of their works that would not meet the most stringently conservative definition of noncommercial, and licensees who are uncertain of whether their use is noncommercial should find a work to use that does unambiguously allow commercial use

  • Why ask? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bunratty (545641) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:04PM (#33059088)
    Why ask about it on Slashdot? We'll all say information wants to be free and we don't believe in imaginary property. Oh, wait, you said big corporations are ripping off your stuff? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS1!!11!!1!
    • Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee (775178) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:06PM (#33059148) Homepage

      Information doesn't want to be free.
      Some people want other people's information to be free, but that's about as far as it goes.

      • Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Moof (859402) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:20PM (#33059414)
        This is not so much "My information shouldn't be free" but "stop using my works for profit when the license explicitly says for non-commercial use."
      • Re:Why ask? (Score:4, Informative)

        by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:23PM (#33059462) Journal

        Information doesn't want to be free. Some people want other people's information to be free, but that's about as far as it goes.

        I found the original quote in its entirety to be a lot better at describing our trade off [wikipedia.org]:

        On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

        It became some sort of rallying cry for some folks about some ideals. But if you really think about it, personifying information is quite idiotic. Information doesn't want to be free. It can't want anything. If there were no humans around information wouldn't do a whole lot. Certain kinds of information like DNA seem to have some unknown motive and mechanization to persist and mutate but the way we view information (as a product of other humans) is something that we want to be free and that we don't want to have to pay for. And really, the producers of the information want it to be expensive. They want their reward back for their work. And the consumers are still wanting it to be free. So the speech did an interesting job of boiling it down into one thing -- one thing that has both these very strong forces pulling on it. But then you have the legal system of most nations pulling it to be more expensive and litigious while at the same time technology pulls it paradoxically the other way. It's a capital tug of war game with the rope of information and when you say "information wants to be free" you're only talking about one side of the rope.

        • Re:Why ask? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Angst Badger (8636) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:55PM (#33060000)

          And really, the producers of the information want it to be expensive. They want their reward back for their work.

          More than that, they want to be rewarded perpetually for work they did once, which is why it strikes so many people as basically unfair, or at least anomalous. If I pay you to put a new roof on my house, I pay you once for a few days' work, at until I need you to come back in fifteen or twenty years to do it again. Another roofer can do my neighbor's roof without having to pay you for having roofed my house first. And so it goes with most jobs: you get paid for the work you do. With information, you get paid for all time for having done some work at some point in the past.

          Nice work if you can get it, I guess.

          The system of artificial scarcity we call intellectual property rights was created because, unlike roofs, information is cheap and easy to duplicate, and without that artificial scarcity, creators of useful information would get paid so little that they'd find something less useful but more profitable to do. Unfortunately, it's been carried to such an extreme -- in large part because of the transferability of those privileges -- that entire industries now make billions of work they haven't done at all, while the actual creators, by and large, still get paid jack. What has changed with recent technological advances isn't so much the cost of duplicating data, which was already cheap as dirt, but the emergence of the possibility of eliminating the distribution cartels that screw the creators and gouge the consumers.

          Aside from a few exceptional cases, that possibility remains theoretical. Instead of information wanting to be free, the dominant force at work is that people want all they can get, and those who already have a bunch are in a good position to take more, with minimal recompense, from the rest of us. Which is nothing new.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by meburke (736645)

          I'm struck by the idea that the USA was founded on the supposition that we were born with "property rights." One explanation of this is that "Life" assumes we own ourselves, "Liberty" assumes we can use what we own (ourselves) to do what we want AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, and "Pursuit of happiness" is construed as the right to own (and dispose of) the products of our life AS LONG AS WE DON'T IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.

          Producing information (the pr

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      big corp or indy web developer, if his stuff is getting ripped off, sue sue sue if they won't be polite.

  • by Joe Mucchiello (1030) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:05PM (#33059096) Homepage

    If you don't sue, who will? Perhaps the EFF can help.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by snookerhog (1835110)
      If you don't pay the lawyers, who will? Perhaps EFF can pay the lawyers.

      There fixed that for you.

      The sad truth is that like any other agreement or contract, it is only worth as much as you are willing to pay your lawyer.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sammy baby (14909)

        Were you being facetious? The EFF are the lawyers - when you make a donation to them, you're helping to pay for litigation for people who may not otherwise be able to afford lawyers. Check out some of the legal battles they've won here [eff.org], and consider making a donation.

    • by kubitus (927806) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:25PM (#33059496)
      In Germany the authors of artistic images created an organisation defending their rights.

      They bill the companies - and if they do not part with their brass, sue.

      http://www.bildkunst.de/ [bildkunst.de]

      maybe there is a similar org where you live?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Phrogman (80473)

      If you don't pursue this in some form against all parties you discover have violated your rights, can their lawyers say that you were not actively seeking to defend the license on your images and therefore any individual attempt can be dismissed? I mean its like that with trademarks is it not? If you aren't actively defending it, you can lose it?
      IANAL of course.
      I would pursue the DMCA takedown notice route I think (assuming you are in the USA), and let them know of the problem. At the same time, contact the

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by the_womble (580291)

        I mean its like that with trademarks is it not? If you aren't actively defending it, you can lose it?

        It is like that with trademarks, it is not like that with copyright.

        Software companies even deliberately ignore pirating in order to increase their installed base, and crack down later.

    • by ahecht (567934) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:43PM (#33059814) Homepage

      Yes, of course the EFF would help you sue Cory Doctorow, who is a former EFF staff member, recipient of EFF's 2007 Pioneer Award, and a current EFF fellow.

  • Here's what you do (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    1. Send a DMCA notice.
    2. They take it down, you DON'T sue, you DON'T get any money
    3. Case closed.

    or
    1. Send a DMCA notice.
    2. They don't take it down.
    3. Sue.
    4. Lose money on legal fees
    5. They take it down. You still don't get any money.

    DONT EXPECT MONEY!

  • Your lawyer is right. All you can do is sue them.

    Your other option is just don't put stuff up on the web if you don't want people/corporations ripping it off. They will, you know.

  • So in the examples listed, are the authors making any money off the image...? If so, no harm done right? Because when software/movies/music/etc. are pirated for non-financial gain, it's no big deal. At least that's what I've heard on /.

    • by Late Adopter (1492849) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:20PM (#33059404)
      The summary states plain as day that the non-commercial CC license was used, so if the offenders weren't using his material in the furtherance of making a buck he wouldn't have a problem.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Cereal Box (4286)

        Do you really think these particular images were chosen over others to generate revenue? Or do they just happen to be images picked to go along with the theme of the articles (which is indeed the case)? You guys are confusing the fact that these images happen to be placed on sites that earn revenue with the images themselves being responsible for said revenue.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Off topic, but CC non-commercial licenses were a bad idea to begin with -- the idea behind CC is that I should be able to share, but if I cannot charge for the service of, say, burning a compilation of CC media to Blu-ray (not at all far fetched to do), then the license is not really furthering the goal of sharing. This is exactly the sort of argument behind why the GPL allows commercial distribution.
  • Very annoying (Score:2, Interesting)

    by valeo.de (1853046)

    I've had similar things happen with my own works that I've licensed under either the CC or similar media-suited licenses. It's very annoying. Even worse, it's always the big companies that could actually afford a to pay for whatever rights necessary that dont, in my experience. Very sloppy business practices...

    But what can you do? You have a choice: protect your rights (while you still have them!), ot let corporations take the piss. Pretty simple, really.

  • Reprint It (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Courageous (228506) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:07PM (#33059158)

    Regarding the one vendor telling people to stay away from YOUR image, put up a copy on a website, and then taunt them with it. Make them sue you. Your response in Court should be most interesting. :-)

    • Re:Reprint It (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kevinNCSU (1531307) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:15PM (#33059316)
      The "vendor" (it's a blog) isn't telling people to stay away from it, it's literally linked back to that dude's photostream and describes the license which means the vendor thinks they're following the license and doesn't think their blog is commercial use despite the ads. And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The "vendor" (it's a blog) isn't telling people to stay away from it, it's literally linked back to that dude's photostream and describes the license which means the vendor thinks they're following the license and doesn't think their blog is commercial use despite the ads. And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.

        This is rich! Cory actually owns the hammock!
        check this out.
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtrant/sets/72157622221823079/ [flickr.com]
        WTF?

        • So... the caption that the artist placed on the photo that Cory posted on BoingBoing reads:

          Restoring a hammock to Moonwatcher's Point, courtesy of Cory Doctorow. All is now right with the world. Feel free to drop by when you need a moment's peace. And thank the kindness of strangers.

          I don't even know what's happening now. Is this what a stroke feels like?

      • Re:Reprint It (Score:5, Informative)

        by wygit (696674) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @02:00PM (#33060116)

        and somebody on BoingBoing was monitoring or got alerted to the problem. The photo has been removed with an apology.

        "Update: We've removed the CC-licensed image as it appears the photographer is unhappy with our usage of it here. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality. Please accept our apologies. - Rob"

  • Use... (Score:2, Funny)

    ...hired goons. Nothing says loving like a hired goon visit.
  • Suing's all you've got, it's all big corporations will pay attention to. They just shrug off DMCA notices, because a DMCA notice is a piece of paper until it becomes a lawsuit. If you're not willing to suck it up and do it, then you shouldn't be surprised when they walk all over you. When people learn that actions have no consequences, they tend to repeat them.

    On the bright side, there have been successful suits brought against CC violators.
  • by sqldr (838964) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:08PM (#33059182)
    if someone wants the non-logo version, they have to contact you directly and demonstrate that they've read the license.
  • Send them an invoice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Erich (151) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:08PM (#33059184) Homepage Journal
    You could send them an invoice for the use of your work.
  • You could... (Score:5, Informative)

    by castironpigeon (1056188) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:09PM (#33059210)
    ...check out the list of CC Friendly Lawyers at creativecommons.org [creativecommons.org]. Somebody might be able to offer advice that doesn't involve suing the infringing parties.
  • by Broofa (541944) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:11PM (#33059230) Homepage
    From section 4b of the Non-Commercial CC [creativecommons.org] license:

    You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.

    It's up for debate as to whether or not BoingBoing is receiving "monetary compensation" for "exchanging" your work. Yes, it's next to ads, which they're being paid to display. But they're not being paid to display your image. At least, not directly.

    • by rotide (1015173)

      What happens if you run a site that does _nothing_ but post CC images in a slide-show fashion along side advertisements?

      Maybe that shows direct profit from the images?

      What if they type a one paragraph "article" or "review" once a month or so and put that on some sub page, along with CC images and ads?

      What if they put that "article" or "review" on the main page, along with CC images and ads?

      Where is the line?

      In my opinion, if you're being paid merely for having your site (through advertisement agreements), a

  • Boing Boing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sqlrob (173498) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:13PM (#33059270)

    Boing Boing releases all of their stuff under CC NC SA, so you may not have a case there. IANAL, but that's probably the last one you'd want to take on over other companies.

    • by JoeBuck (7947) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:25PM (#33059510) Homepage
      Boing Boing releases their stuff using a license that would prevent others from picking it all up on a different web site and selling ads. This doesn't give them the right to use others' work in a way that conflicts with the license (other than fair use, which might allow for a thumbnail link). I think that this license violation on their part was inadvertent, the author of the web page thought he was filing his personal "I'm on vacation" announcement and forgot about the ads. In the case of BoingBoing I would politely ask them to take it down, and to respect that "noncommercial" means "don't attach ads to this". The copyright holder can still decide to grant permission if asked politely.
  • by TDyl (862130)
    but would it not be possible to post lo-res versions with CC license information and a link to you to request higher-res copies for use within the commercial work, or does that go against the point of posting hi-res with CC in the first place?
  • by jchawk (127686)

    You have a couple of options.

    1. Stop posting your photos on the Internet.
    2. Do nothing and accept the exposure.
    3. You can sue.

    Like it or not but the legal system is probably the answer. Try to find a firm that will take on the case for free in exchange for a larger share of the profits. If you can't find a firm to take it on then reality is your work probably isn't worth any real money anyways so you should probably just accept the exposure and move on.

    Or like I said earlier just stop posting your phot

    • by JoeBuck (7947)
      There's an intermediate step: send them a DMCA takedown notice. If they defy it, then you have to decide whether you want to sue.
  • This is slashdot. All digital content "wants" to be free. Just as /.ers should haven't to pay for music, movies or audiobooks, neither should corporations.
  • DIY (Score:5, Informative)

    by paiute (550198) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:14PM (#33059310)

    File against them in small claims court for the maximum allowed. They will probably not bother to show, so you will win. With a judgement, you have legal permission to do all kinds of creative nastiness to them. Garnishing wages, filing liens against their property, even having a sheriff by your side as you take some of their property to fulfill the judgement.

    I am obviously not a lawyer, and the details will vary with jurisdiction.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cpt kangarooski (3773)

      Well, you can't do that for copyright infringement (only federal courts can hear copyright cases). It would have to be framed as a breach of contract case to get into state court (and state courts won't always buy into that), and in this case it doesn't really strike me as the best way to go. The damages issue stands out in particular.

  • by (H)elix1 (231155) * <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:17PM (#33059352) Homepage Journal

    The obvious thing would be to send them an invoice for a commercial license to your asset. Odds are, accounting will be more than happy to process it. No need to sue, or threaten to... Hell, you might just snag yourself a customer, if you are not careful for other assets too.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by PurpleCarrot (892888)
      Bingo. It worked for me when I had to deal with the same issue for a magazine in the UK which printed a photo of mine without permission.
  • You'd think ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Keyslapper (852034) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:19PM (#33059392)
    Of all people, Cory Doctorow would know if he had violated the CC ...
  • From Boing Boing (Score:5, Informative)

    by beschizza (1732378) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:49PM (#33059904)
    On the assumption the objection may be from the photographer--we haven't heard from them directly, as far I as know, though Cory's on vacation and not available--we've removed the CC-licensed image. We support the Creative Commons and will always do our best to honor the creator's interpretation of non-commerciality [creativecommons.org]. We haven't really thought through CC non-com stuff on pages with advertising at BB as a matter of policy--it's on each poster's conscience. But I know that Cory often seeks permission directly from photographers on flickr, and that other editors do likewise. Thanks, any many apologies if we have err.
  • by roystgnr (4015) <roystgnr@ticam.ut[ ]s.edu ['exa' in gap]> on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @02:46PM (#33060728) Homepage

    I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of US copyright law differs from yours...

    The bad news, about that $150,000: you're not going to get it. Statutory damages are only awardable if your work was registered with the Copyright Office prior to the infringement. Without registration, you're eligible for actual damages, basically just how much money the infringer made off of your work. Unless Wired regularly pays $1 per copy per image (they don't) then you're not going to get that much either.

    The good news, about those DMCA notices: you can skip them and go straight to a lawsuit if you want. DMCA notices are for the infringer's service provider; their ISP, or their web host, or the blog they commented on, or whatever. The service provider gets a chance to pass the notice on, then cut off service for the infringed work if the notice is unchallenged, without becoming liable for infringement themselves. But Wired isn't a service provider for its own employees. If they're copying your work without permission, they're already guilty, no backsies.

  • by jtrant (1866422) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @09:22PM (#33064418) Homepage
    hey everyone -- it's my picture of "Cory's Hammock" that appeared on boingboing: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/27/gone-fission----see.html [boingboing.net] i release most of my pics and academic writing under CC-BY-NC-SA, which is the license that was reproduced on the post. but when i put these pics up on Flickr after Cory sent the hammock [yes, there is some irony there. it is his hammock!] i gave him permission to use them if he wished. and he has. and it's ok with me. as some of the comments in this thread note, the definition of "non-commercial" is the most problematic thing about CC licenses: see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial [creativecommons.org] for background from the Creative Commons. however, in this case [and IP infringement decisions are based on specific circumstances] that definition is inconsequential, because my permission was granted. remember, CC licenses are non-exclusive, and the same content released under CC can also be licensed in other places in other ways. whoever started this thread didn't check with me [i'm not that hard to find] or with BoingBoing about the circumstances under which my image was used. my picture was 'Used with permission". i've suggested that the rights statement on BoingBoing be updated to make that clear. thanks for your help, everyone, but this damsel is not in distress! /jt
  • I'm the Boing Boing editor who posted the image that the OP claims violated the Creative Commons license.

    Read the OP closely: he's not saying that it was *his* image I took -- rather, that he was affronted on behalf of the photographer.

    Except that the photographer in this case is my friend and colleague Jennifer Trant, and I used the photo with her permission, and then reproduced the entire CC license so that other people would know what terms they could use it on.

    So, anonymous poster: how about the next time you decide to smear someone for infringing Creative Commons in the name of defending someone's copyrights, you actually make sure that the creator hasn't authorized the use?

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak

Working...